Clinical validity assessment of genes for inclusion in multi-gene panel testing: A systematic approach.
cardiology
clinical validity
detection rate
gene characterization
gene vetting
gene-disease relationship
multi-gene panel genetic testing
Journal
Molecular genetics & genomic medicine
ISSN: 2324-9269
Titre abrégé: Mol Genet Genomic Med
Pays: United States
ID NLM: 101603758
Informations de publication
Date de publication:
05 2019
05 2019
Historique:
received:
20
09
2018
revised:
08
01
2019
accepted:
11
02
2019
pubmed:
23
3
2019
medline:
27
6
2019
entrez:
23
3
2019
Statut:
ppublish
Résumé
Advances in sequencing technology have led to expanded use of multi-gene panel tests (MGPTs) for clinical diagnostics. Well-designed MGPTs must balance increased detection of clinically significant findings while mitigating the increase in variants of uncertain significance (VUS). To maximize clinical utililty, design of such panels should include comprehensive gene vetting using a standardized clinical validity (CV) scoring system. To assess the impact of CV-based gene vetting on MGPT results, data from MGPTs for cardiovascular indications were retrospectively analyzed. Using our CV scoring system, genes were categorized as having definitive, strong, moderate, or limited evidence. The rates of reported pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and VUS were then determined for each CV category. Of 106 total genes, 42% had definitive, 17% had strong, 29% had moderate, and 12% had limited CV. The detection rate of variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic was higher for genes with greater CV, while the VUS rate showed an inverse relationship with CV score. No pathogenic or likely pathogenic findings were observed in genes with a limited CV. These results demonstrate the importance of a standardized, evidence-based vetting process to establish CV for genes on MGPTs. Using our proposed system may help to increase the detection rate while mitigating higher VUS rates.
Sections du résumé
BACKGROUND
Advances in sequencing technology have led to expanded use of multi-gene panel tests (MGPTs) for clinical diagnostics. Well-designed MGPTs must balance increased detection of clinically significant findings while mitigating the increase in variants of uncertain significance (VUS). To maximize clinical utililty, design of such panels should include comprehensive gene vetting using a standardized clinical validity (CV) scoring system.
METHODS
To assess the impact of CV-based gene vetting on MGPT results, data from MGPTs for cardiovascular indications were retrospectively analyzed. Using our CV scoring system, genes were categorized as having definitive, strong, moderate, or limited evidence. The rates of reported pathogenic or likely pathogenic variants and VUS were then determined for each CV category.
RESULTS
Of 106 total genes, 42% had definitive, 17% had strong, 29% had moderate, and 12% had limited CV. The detection rate of variants classified as pathogenic or likely pathogenic was higher for genes with greater CV, while the VUS rate showed an inverse relationship with CV score. No pathogenic or likely pathogenic findings were observed in genes with a limited CV.
CONCLUSION
These results demonstrate the importance of a standardized, evidence-based vetting process to establish CV for genes on MGPTs. Using our proposed system may help to increase the detection rate while mitigating higher VUS rates.
Identifiants
pubmed: 30900393
doi: 10.1002/mgg3.630
pmc: PMC6503028
doi:
Types de publication
Evaluation Study
Journal Article
Langues
eng
Sous-ensembles de citation
IM
Pagination
e630Informations de copyright
© 2019 Ambry Genetics. Molecular Genetics & Genomic Medicine published by Wiley Periodicals, Inc.
Références
Ann Oncol. 2013 Nov;24 Suppl 8:viii69-viii74
pubmed: 24131974
N Engl J Med. 2015 Jun 4;372(23):2235-42
pubmed: 26014595
Am J Hum Genet. 2015 Aug 6;97(2):199-215
pubmed: 26166479
JAMA Psychiatry. 2016 Mar;73(3):275-83
pubmed: 26817790
Clin Genet. 2015 Dec;88(6):523-9
pubmed: 25640009
Hum Mutat. 2014 Sep;35(9):1046-59
pubmed: 24980681
Genet Med. 2015 May;17(5):405-24
pubmed: 25741868
Am J Hum Genet. 2017 May 4;100(5):695-705
pubmed: 28475856
Mol Genet Genomic Med. 2019 May;7(5):e630
pubmed: 30900393
Clin Genet. 2018 Mar;93(3):459-466
pubmed: 28589536
Clin Genet. 2018 Jan;93(1):33-40
pubmed: 28369760
BMC Cancer. 2015 Nov 25;15:936
pubmed: 26608569
J Genet Couns. 2016 Feb;25(1):101-11
pubmed: 25983052
Clin Genet. 2015;87(1):21-9
pubmed: 24773164
Hum Mol Genet. 2014 Nov 15;23(22):5866-78
pubmed: 24939910
Am J Hum Genet. 2017 Jun 1;100(6):895-906
pubmed: 28552198
Genet Med. 2014 Aug;16(8):601-8
pubmed: 24503780
Hum Mutat. 2017 May;38(5):600-608
pubmed: 28106320